DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendment/remarks filed 28 October 2025.
Claims 1-13, 16, and 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s remarks. Applicant argues that “a Merkle tree is a tree in which every “leaf” node is labelled with the cryptographic hash of a data block, and every node that is not a leaf is labelled with the cryptographic hash of the labels of its child nodes. Generating a cryptographic hash of a data block, which is necessary to construct a Merkle tree, is rooted in computer technology and not reasonably performable by a human.” Remarks at 10. Examiner does agree with this argument and thus these particular limitations, which involve the generation of the Merkle tree, are no longer considered to fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. The claims as a whole still fall within at least one abstract idea grouping and thus they remain rejected under 35 USC § 101, as shown in the rejection below.
Applicant argues that “the specification specifically describes a problem in the technical field of data analysis and social-commercial networking, and then provides a technical solution to solve this problem, thus providing [an] “improvement to … a technical field” per the USPTO’s guidance.” Remarks at 14. The portion of the specification cited ([0004] and [0005]) do not describe a technical problem. Rather, the problem described is one of members experiencing limitations in finding and creating connections with other user-members. This is not inherently technical in nature. This argument is thus not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the office has not issued any rejections under either § 102 or § 103. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the components of the claims, generic or otherwise, are arranged in a non-generic way that is not disclosed or suggested in the prior art.” Remarks at 16. An absence of a prior art rejection is not reflective of whether or not a claim should be rejected under 35 USC § 101. The present claims are non-obvious, but it is an abstract concept that provide this non-obviousness. A novel equation, for example, does not become patentable simply because it is novel. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC § 102/103, Examiner has performed an additional search for the amendments and finds that the claims are not found in either a single reference nor an obvious combination of references. Claim 12, for example, recites “capturing, via a digital analytics engine, digital network activity data for each node of a cloud-based digital social network, the digital network activity occurring on a referral network layer and a commercial network layer; generating, via the digital analytics engine, a Merkle tree organizing each node in relation to one another based on the digital network activity occurring on the referral network layer; tracking, via a payment tracking engine, the digital network activities occurring on the commercial network layer via one or more application programming interfaces (APIs);assigning, via the digital analytics engine, an individual impact score for each node based on the digital network activity data of that node; and distributing, via the payment tracking engine, financial payments to each node based on each node's individual impact score.” The closest prior art remains Borgella and Lee. However, neither Borgella nor Lee teach the limitations now found in claim 12. The rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which is considered a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A-Prong One
(Claim 1) The “identify, via the data analytics engine, a sub-network of a first user of the one or more users, the sub-network of the first user including each user of the one or more users that were referred to the cloud-based social network by the first user” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but of the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “via the data analytics engine” language, the claim encompasses a user manually identifying users. Thus, this claim falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas; the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Claim 1) The “determine, via the data analytics engine, an individual impact score for the first user based on the viral network effects data and the commercial network effects data for the first user” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “via the data analytics engine” language, the claim encompasses a user manually quantifying an amount of digital engagement that a first user has through an individual impact score. Thus, this claim falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas; the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Claim 1) The “determine, via the data analytics engine, a sub-network impact score based on the viral network effects data and the commercial network effects data for the users in the sub-network of the first user” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “via the data analytics engine” language, the claim encompasses a user manually quantifying an amount of digital engagement that all users within the sub-network of the first user have with the cloud-based social network through a sub-network impact score. Thus, this claim falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas; the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Claim 1) This claim recites the concept of making payments to a user based on their engagement with a social network and their network’s engagement with the social network (see “generate, via a data analytics engine on a referral network layer, a referral network layer that includes user data for one or more users of a cloud-based social network organized into a Merkle tree structure based on an order of membership referrals indicating which user referred which other user; identify, via the data analytics engine, a sub-network of a first user of the one or more users, the sub-network of the first user including each user of the one or more users that were referred to the cloud-based social network by the first user; generate, via the data analytics engine, a commercial network layer that includes a mapping of commercial links between the one or more users of the cloud-based social network; collect, via the data analytics engine, viral network effects data based on each user's activity on the referral network layer and commercial network effects data related to each user's activity on the commercial network laver; determine, via the data analytics engine, an individual impact score for the first user based on the viral network effects data and the commercial network effects data for the first user; determine, via the data analytics engine, a sub-network impact score based on the viral network effects data and the commercial network effects data for the users in the sub-network of the first user; and based on the individual impact score and the sub-network impact score, automatically make, via a payment tracking engine, a recurring electronic payment to the first user on a periodic basis” in claim 1). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including managing interactions between people and commercial interactions. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
(Claim 2) This claim further defines what is considered digital engagement (see “the viral network effects data includes at least one of hyperlink click-throughs, viewing digital media, viewing digital advertisements, viewing time spent on the cloud-based social network, posting of digital material on the cloud-based social network, or commercial activity on the cloud-based social network”). These limitations do not take the claims out of the abstract idea groupings identified for claim 1.
(Claim 3) The “the individual impact score and the sub-network impact score are recalculated for the first user and the sub-network of the first user on a periodic basis” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a user manually recalculating the scores on a periodic basis. Thus, this claim falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas; the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Claim 4) This claim further defines what is being measured (see “inclusion of the sub-network of the first-user is a measure of the viral network effects data attributable to the first user”). These limitations do not take the claims out of the abstract idea groupings identified for claim 1.
(Claim 5) This claim further defines that the scores are generated using AI or ML (see “the data analytics engine generates the individual impact score and sub-network impact score utilizing artificial intelligence or machine learning”). The AI and ML are not positively recited and thus they are part of the abstract idea rather than an additional element (analyzed further below in Step 2A-Prong Two and Step 2B). The limitations in claim 5 do not take the claims out of the abstract idea groupings identified for claim 1.
(Claim 6) This claim recites the concept of simulating user reactions and increasing commerce on a social network (see “capture, via a data analytics engine, digital information one or more users of a cloud-based social network, including past user reactions to one or more network tools; based on the past user reactions, utilize, via the data analytics engine, a simulator to simulate future user reactions of the one or more users in response to iteratively implementing one or more simulated network tools by the simulator; based on the simulated future user reactions, determine, via the data analytics engine, one or more effective network tools of the one or more simulated network tools that increase commerce within the cloud-based social network; based on the simulated future user reactions, determine, via the data analytics engine, one or more effective network tools of the one or more simulated network tools that increase commerce within the cloud-based social network; and implement, by an engagement driver, the one or more effective network tools in the cloud-based social network to increase commerce”). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including commercial interactions. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
(Claim 7) This claim recites additional data that is stored in the storage medium (see “provide a referral network layer where users are linked together into a Merkle tree based upon the user that referred them to the cloud-based social network; and provide a commercial network layer where users are dynamically linked to other users based upon commercial activity without regard to which user referred them to the cloud-based social network”). However, these limitations do not take the claim out of the abstract idea grouping(s) identified for claim 6.
(Claim 8) This claim recites implementation of method steps (see “implement, via the data analytics engine, an artificially intelligent social network connection hunter that generates internal connections between existing users of the cloud-based social network to support viral effects within the cloud-based social network, wherein the artificially intelligent social network connection hunter generates internal connections based on data gathered from the existing users of the cloud-based social network”). However, these limitations do not take the claim out of the abstract idea grouping(s) identified for claim 6.
(Claim 9) This claim recites additional data that is stored in the storage medium (see “a data analytics payment engine that monitors cloud-based social networking activity of each user within the cloud-based social network, wherein the data analytics payment engine assigns an impact score to each individual user based upon their total engagement activity online with the cloud-based social network, wherein the data analytics payment engine distributes financial payments to users that have an impact score above a minimum threshold, wherein the data analytics payment engine does not distribute financial payments to users that have an impact score below a minimum threshold”). However, these limitations do not take the claim out of the abstract idea grouping(s) identified for claim 6.
(Claim 10) This claim further indicates that the score is based on additional activity (see “the impact score includes the cloud-based social networking activity of other users that can trace their referral back to the user receiving an impact score such that the impact score reflects the activities of the user in question and all users within their social network”). These limitations do not take the claim out of the abstract idea grouping(s) identified for claim 6.
(Claim 11) This claim recites additional data that is stored in the storage medium (see “a cloud-based social network simulator in which an artificial intelligence engine simulates behavior of users within the cloud-based social network in response to application of one or more network tools applied by the cloud-based social network to one or more users”). However, these limitations do not take the claim out of the abstract idea grouping(s) identified for claim 6.
(Claim 12) The “assigning, via the digital analytics engine, an individual impact score for each node based on the digital network activity data of that node” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “via the digital analytics engine” language, the claim encompasses a user manually assigning an individual impact score for each node based on the digital network activity data of that node. Thus, this claim falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas; the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Claim 12) This claim recites the concept of making payments to a node based on their engagement with a network (see “capturing, via a digital analytics engine, digital network activity data for each node of a cloud-based digital social network, the digital network activity occurring on a referral network layer and a commercial network layer; generating, via the digital analytics engine, a Merkle tree organizing each node in relation to one another based on the digital network activity occurring on the referral network layer; tracking, via a payment tracking engine, the digital network activities occurring on the commercial network layer via one or more application programming interfaces (APIs);assigning, via the digital analytics engine, an individual impact score for each node based on the digital network activity data of that node; and distributing, via the payment tracking engine, financial payments to each node based on each node's individual impact score”). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including managing interactions between people and commercial interactions. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
(Claim 13) This claim further defines what is considered activity (see “the digital network activity data includes one or more digital network activity types including at least one of: electronic communications between nodes, electronic transactions between nodes, electronic purchases between nodes, offering for sale products or services to other nodes, viewing electronic media from other nodes, expanding the size of the digital social network by adding new users as nodes of the digital social network, or any other form of electronic network activity between nodes of the digital social network”). These limitations do not take the claims out of the abstract idea groupings identified for claim 12.
(Claim 14) This claim further defines what makes up the score (see “each digital network activity type is assigned a score, wherein each score varies based upon a level of activity for a particular digital network activity type”). These limitations do not take the claims out of the abstract idea groupings identified for claims 13 and 12.
(Claim 15) This claim further defines what makes up the score (see “the individual impact score is a weighted summation of the assigned scores for the various types of digital network activity types engaged in by each individual node”). These limitations do not take the claims out of the abstract idea groupings identified for claims 14, 13, and 12.
(Claim 16) This claim further defines when a payment is distributed (see “nodes that fail to have an impact score that rises above a minimum threshold are excluded from receiving a financial payment distribution”). These limitations do not take the claims out of the abstract idea groupings identified for claim 12.
(Claim 17) This claim further defines when a payment is distributed (see “a node that does not have an impact score that rises above a minimum threshold and is excluded from a financial payment distribution for a first payment period may receive a financial payment distribution for a second payment period when the impact score for that node rises above the minimum threshold”). These limitations do not take the claims out of the abstract idea groupings identified for claims 16 and 12.
(Claim 18) The “tracking, via the data analytics engine, commercial activities of the users on the cloud-based social network, wherein the commercial activities form a second layer of the cloud-based social network” step, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “via the data analytics engine” language, the claim encompasses a user manually tracking commercial activities of the users on the cloud-based social network, wherein the commercial activities form a second layer of the cloud-based social network. Thus, this claim falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas; the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Claim 18) This claim recites the concept of tracking user commercial activities in a social network (see “associating, via a data analytics engine, users of a cloud-based social network into a Merkle tree structure based on an order of membership referrals indicating which user referred which other user to the cloud-based social network, wherein the Merkle tree structure forms a first layer of the cloud-based social network; tracking, via the data analytics engine, commercial activities of the users on the cloud-based social network, wherein the commercial activities form a second layer of the cloud-based social network; deploying, via an engagement driver, one or more network tools to achieve one or more goal parameters; executing, via the data analytics engine, a closed-loop control system by: acquiring data on the commercial activities of the users in response to the one or more network tools, identifying, by a machine learning model, one or more effective network tools that are effective at achieving the one or more goal parameters, and redeploying the one or more network tools based on the identification of the one or more effective network tools”). This concept falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including managing interactions between people and commercial interactions. Thus, this claim recites an abstract idea.
(Claim 19) This claim further defines what a commercial activity includes (see “the commercial activities include at least one of: electronic communications between nodes, electronic transactions between nodes, electronic purchases between nodes, offering for sale products or services to other nodes, viewing electronic media from other nodes, or any other form of electronic network activity between nodes of the digital social network”). This limitation does not take the claim out of the abstract idea groupings identified for claim 18.
(Claim 20) This claim further defines tools used to generate new user connections (see “the data analytics engine utilizes a network tool kit to generate new user connections based on network effects, wherein the one or more network tools include one or more of advertisements, videos, media, images, electronic messaging, coupons, financial rewards, or product recommendations”). These limitations do not take the claim out of the abstract idea groupings identified for claims 19 and 18.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component does not take the claim limitations out of the abstract idea grouping(s). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, one or more processors, and a data analytics engine, and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The storage medium does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622